Jump to content

cdhames

Members
  • Posts

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

3,542 profile views
  1. Just to revisit your point, "when the BPA says so". There isn't a clause that I'm aware of that mandates a single call Purchase Limit on a FAR 13 BPA; as I've seen it done, it's normally prescribed in descriptive text as an "add-in". The Air Force has moved to a contract writing system that considers this now, so you're able to set a purchase constraint on a FAR 13 BPA and it will essentially print out on the 1155 something like this, "Allowed Per Order, Maximum: xx,000.00 Dollars". The only FAR or official AF guidance that i can find is the FAR 13.303-5 (b) reference stating that BPAs shall not exceed the SAT. Any discussion of establishing a "charge account" in official guidance is either no longer apparent, or vacated. My question is, is it your view that whatever purchase constraint the CO chooses to set the purchase limit at (within the prescribed FAR guidance), is that the limit that the a call can be placed at, without executing a Standard Form 1155 or 1449? Or am I interpreting your comment wrong?
  2. I think you'd be surprised. In my experience most, (if not all?) base level contracting units (CONS in AF) still utilize FAR 13 BPAs. MPT and GCPC guidance has changed dramatically over the last 15 years but I don't believe the FAR 13 BPA guidance has changed much at all.
  3. That's what I'm asking. I've been unable to find a threshold that says specifically that a DD Form 1155 or SF 1449 needs to be issued when placing BPA calls above the MPT. And it seems like that would invalidate the value of awarding a BPA for purchases above the MPT (FAR 13.303-5 (b) Individual purchases shall not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold). Much of the value of a FAR 13 decentralized BPA is the flexibility of the authorized caller to place calls without the involvement of a CO. Having to execute a 1155 for a call above the MPT seems to defeat the purpose of the decentralized BPA. I would add, you don't need a BPA to make a GCPC purchase below the MPT. What is the point of the BPA?
  4. Appreciate your response. Also appreciate you referring me back to my guidance issuer. I get that's generally the authoritative response when someone asks a question and says we "were told" to do it this way (so just do it, don't post on a forum right?). I should add I'm not trying to rock a boat here. I'd like to just formulate an intelligent response to that guidance issuer. By the way I did ask that guidance issuer before i posted here, and was referred to the DAFI 64-117. here's where I'm at: 13.303-5 (b) Individual purchases shall not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. 32.1108 issues further guidance for Payment by Governmentwide commercial purchase card, but seems only to apply to written contracts (i.e., 32.1108(b)(1)Written contracts to be paid by purchase card should include the clause at 52.232-36, Payment by Third Party). Clause 52.232.36 seems to be irrelevant since we're discussing a decentralized BPA i.e., charge account for items under the SAT. (unless of course we're issuing a contract vehicle --which is why I'm here --I'm looking for that guidance that says i have to). Since this is Air Force, DAFI 64-117 (Government Purchase Card Program) is applicable, but there is only 1 reference to "BPA" in the entire 96 page document. Thus: 11.1.2. CH Training Requirements for Above MPT up to SAT Purchases on Pre-Priced Contracts. CHs shall be appointed as a “Contract Ordering Official” in PIEE/JAM to be authorized to spend up to the SAT. (T-0) This requires CHs, who are not Contracting Officers, to take CON 237 – Simplified Acquisition Procedures, prior to receiving authorization to spend up to the SAT on pre-priced BPAs and Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contracts. So where i'm at currently: Authorized callers can make calls up to the SAT (13.303-5(b)); as long as they're properly trained and appointed as a "Contract Ordering Official" (DAFI 64-117 para 11.1.2.). Im unable to locate any guidance that states I have to issue a contract vehicle for BPA calls over the MPT. So.. I can do the research, I'd just like someone to point me in the right direction.
  5. I've long been somewhat confused on when to issue an actual contract vehicle against a BPA call, but the subjects come up recently in my office so I thought i would finally ask. When do you issue a contract vehicle (SF 1155 or 1449) against a BPA call? Our latest guidance is that it's required for any calls above the MPT. I can't find any references that supports this or invalidates it, but i know that it doesn't make sense. If the Government Purchase Card (GPC) is the preferred method of purchase for under the MPT; and a CO must issue an 1155 for any BPA call above the MPT, then of what value is there in establishing a decentralized "charge account"? Apologize if i sound like a noob, I'm not really, but it's long been a gap in my understanding. Thanks.
  6. As I don't currently have $158 to spend on Administration of Government Contracts, I cannot currently see your Chapter 4 on Changes, and raise you a counter. But to your point, I don't see how a reduction in scope implies imprecise language or understanding. Things happen that sometimes just demand change. On Deductive Changes.. As stated in my original post, this was a commercial contract.
  7. I think I would disagree that descoping requirements are nonstandard. That implies that removing requirements in a bilateral fashion from a contract isn't somehow a normal procedure or thing to do. I guess it strikes me as an inflexible mindset. But otherwise, I think you're correct, there is nothing else to do. I wanted to ask the question anyway, and explore the scenario. But thank you for your advice.
  8. The original intent was to descope the removal/installation CLINs, and negotiate a final settlement up front. We could have just jumped to a unilateral T4C and settlement offer --that may seem obvious in hindsight but I think most contracting professional prefer a bilateral agreement if possible. But the descope or a unilateral T4C wasn't ever the issue. Like I said, the issue was the vendor adamantly rebuffing and refusing anything less than 100% payment. My original question was that I was looking for suggestions on how to handle that. Hope that clarifies.
  9. That's correct. Does that imply in your mind that he is due 100% of the FFP amount? I'm just curious and asking for professional opinions, and an explanation of why. I'm not unwilling, I've just never been in an encounter like this and had to consider full payment for a partially serviced contract.
  10. This ends up in the same place, with the vendor still demanding full payment. He will not settle for a partial payment. The problem is that the vendor irrationally insists that, because this is a FFP, he is due 100% of the payment. The schedule delay was not his fault, therefore; his argument demands that he is due the full FFP amount. Jamaal, presumptions are assumptions as well.. yes there is more to it. This is a public forum so we get the sanitized version here, less the drama. The issue here is that the vendor refuses anything less than 100% of the FFP amount. The contract mechanism isn't the issue. We can descope, and settle up. Or yes, we can T4C, and then settle up. It doesn't change the issue. The vendor will not invoice for anything less than 100% of the contract amount. I'm not hiding any relevant details in an attempt to emotionally mollify or justify actions or outcomes. All of the relevant details are present. There was a schedule delay, at the Gov's behest that removes the ability of the contractor to remove/install said delivery this annually appropriated year. The contractor came out and identified it. He is at minimum, due partial settlement for that. With most vendors, we would negotiate it, and call it done. Let me add that this vendor is going through extraordinary lengths to make a lot of noise to receive full payment. That is it.
  11. Schedule delay by the Gov. Half of the PO is delivery. Half of the PO is removal/installation and disposal. Delivery completed, an initial attempt at install, call it mobilization and they arrived at the site before being turned away. Think it goes without saying why we would think they should not be paid for the removal/install and instead negotiate a settlement and descope.
  12. 4 CLINS. Delivery 1, Delivery 2, Remove/Install, Disposal.
  13. Scenario: Commercial, FFP Purchase Order under the SAT, for delivery and installation (service with SCLS WD). The service/installation portion is over 50% of the PO. The vendor has already made delivery and attempted to execute the installation but due to factors outside of their control, could not initiate or complete it. Due to those factors, we would like to descope the services portion of the PO, settle for the delivery and attempted installation and call it done. The vendor disagrees, will not settle, and invoices for full payment of the FFP PO. (Assume they will not settle and will demand full payment no matter the type of communication or inquiry). Looking for suggestions on how to handle this scenario.
×
×
  • Create New...